Dominican Chances

Colleges & Universities A-Z Princeton University
1

<p>Hi, I'm a Dominican applicant and I really would like to know what my chances are...or at least what do you guys think.</p>

<p>Race: Asian/Dominican
Citizenship: US, lived outside US for my entire life
I am pentalingual (spanish, cantonese, mandarin, english, french)</p>

<p>GPA: 3.9ish? out of 4...not too sure... ive got a 98%, with all my classes A and in core classes I tend to get much higher grades than electives
Rank: 1/70</p>

<p>Test Scores:
SAT I : M: 680 CR: 590 W: 620 (I will take these with much preparation on January...hopefully I can report these)
SATII: Spanish 800, Chemistry: 700, Math 1 : 620 (I will take Math1 and Math 2 on Dec. with much preparation as well, perhaps 700+)
TOEFL: 637
APs: Euro 5, US Govt 5, Comp. Govt 5, Spanish 5, Bio 4
Will take: AP US History, AP English Language, AP Physics, AP Calculus</p>

<p>Courses:
Always been advanced in math, science, and social studies... I will have taken 10 APs by graduation</p>

<p>Extracurricular:
-Varsity Volleyball/Basketball for the past 2 years... participated in International Competition between numerous latin american countries in both teams. Also, I was JV Captain and Starter for both teams.
MUN: Local, Boston, Chicago Conferences
Presidential Classroom (1 week simulated U.S. Congress)
Mathematics Olympian runner-up
Chinese Club - President, Founder. Organized fund-raising and local celebrations for Chinese new year.
Honor Council - Founder, President, Head Chair
Chess Club - VP
Peer Leader
Peer Tutor
NHS
Lots of Volunteer Clubs</p>

<p>Awards:
Scholarship Award worth USD $12,000 for highest cumulative GPA in three years
AP Scholar With Distinction
Underclassmen Awards Science* (9th, 11th) Social Studies (10th, 11th), Math (11th), Academic Recognition (top 5 - 9,10,11), Citizenship (10,11)
*Underclassmen Awards are granted to one student per subject per class... does it have any name in the US?
Chinese #1 Speech Award and Runner-Up Essay Writing Award
CAISSA International Volleyball/Basketball Tournament Team Award
Outstanding Delegate of MUN
Presidential Classroom Recognition Award</p>

<p>Hook:
Being Asian/Dominican - American (US citizenship)...maybe URM?
International student to make up for rather low reading score and also, probably the one of like 10 applicants from the Caribbean as well as a country that has no Princeton alumni presently</p>

<p>Last 2 Summers:
Previous Summer I attended a Pre-College Program in UPenn and took 2 college courses (econ and international relations) and Aced both
2 Summers Ago: Traveled around the world and volunteered on community centre.</p>

<p>So what do you guys think? Thanks.</p>

2

<p>It appears you're better at spanish and chinese than at english.</p>

3

<p>Just curious, can good AP scores slighly make up for less then great SAT scores?</p>

4

<p>I wonder that too... I guess it could in terms of impression but not for the record. Ultimately, I think top schools also want to be able to say that their average SAT scores are really good and get better rankings.</p>

5

<p>Taking another look at my initial post, I have to say it was a bit too mean, and for that I apologize. But realistically, you have an extremely small if any amount of a chance of getting into Princeton, unless you're college athletics material, and even then, your scores are still pretty low. You should look at other really good schools that will give you perhaps an even more fulfilling experience, such as Northeastern University.</p>

6

<p>^^Ehh if he got the SAT up to 2100 I bet he would have just as good a chance as anyone else</p>

7

<p>I guess SAT scores are that important eh? Do I get a chance if I get math over 700 and reading/writing 650?</p>

8

<p>mandarin and cantonese are not two different languages, you ARE NOT pentalingual</p>

9

<p>KQI, if you can get at least a score of 1380/1600, then I would say, statistically speaking, you have a MUCH better shot. I mean you'd definitely be near the middle of the pack, rather than be so far behind that you can hardly see the pack. Why? B/c then you would be in the 93th percentile range, a range that I have recently read in a document (w/ courtesy to a fellow CCer) Princeton really likes. But in order to reach that goal, you have to get off of CC, and hit them books, and hit them HARD! Good luck!</p>

10

<p>gametheory: A little learning can be a dangerous thing. The study I linked to is based on data from around 2001, and its predictive power in relation to Princeton is limited at best. Since that time, the university has changed its entire admissions policy. They're not trying to capture the applicants who fall just below Harvard and Yale; they're trying to compete directly for the very best candidates. Having a 1380 will provide no kind of edge whatsoever today. Moreover, it's simply incorrect to say that having a 1380 would put the OP "near the middle of the pack". A 1380 is the delimiting line of the bottom 25th percentile.</p>

11

<p>GR Elton: Do you think Princeton getting rid of ED will effect this though? I think Princeton's process will work more along the lines of how it did in 2001 again, since Princeton won't be able to lock in top candidates that would otherwise go to schools like Harvard, MIT, or even Yale. And also, I think that even though you did show a somewhat appreciable trend of Princeton choosing candidates with higher SAT scores over the past few years, it is still most certainly true that Princeton is still one of the most leniant schools amongst the top schools as far as SAT scores is of concern. MUCH more leniant than Harvard, and MUCH MUCH more leniant than MIT or Caltech. And so after adding this to the fact of Princeton not having ED this year, I think it is going to be nearly impossible for the school to not rewind back to the process used in '01.</p>

12

<p>The reason for Princeton's old policy of trying to attract candidates who fell just below the threshold of its peer schools had a primarily twofold motivation.</p>

<p>(1) To protect yield. Yield, especially at that point in time, was a relatively important dimension of a school's US News ranking--not in the sense that it counted for a lot (it was 5% and they ultimately reduced it to 2.5%), but because it was one of the factors that universities could more or less easily control. Princeton was able to artificially boost its ranking through this means because the gaps at the top were relatively small. More importantly, yield was seen more generally as an indicator of quality and selectivity. Higher yield was associated directly with better school. This made yield protection double important for image protection.</p>

<p>(2) The policy happened to fit with Dean Hargadon's vision of admissions, in particular ensuring that Princeton would consist mostly of 'well-rounded' and traditionally WASPy individuals.</p>

<p>Neither (1) nor (2) holds today. Dean Hargadon has been replaced by Dean Rapleye who enjoys the complete support and confidence of President Tilghman. Her admissions vision, as I noted elsewhere, is rooted in attracting academic superstars, promoting diversity, and making Princeton a true 'peer' competitor to Harvard and Yale. Yield, also, has lost much of its special importance. US News, as I noted above, now only counts yield for 2.5% of a school's score (a 50% reduction in usefulness). More importantly, yield has fallen out of favor as a measure of selectivity among elite commentators and college officials. Following in the tradition set by the original if not influential laissez-faire</a> college rankings, school selectivity and 'quality' are now much more fairly viewed as a product of the academic credentials of the student body. Also consider that Princeton's image today has changed, and the school is more appealing to highly elite applicants (as evidenced by the quantitatively demonstrated increase in student quality for the current freshman class).</p>

<p>If you doubt me, of course, you need only to look at the decision to end early decision. Early decision was instrumental in protecting Princeton's yield. Without it, yield will no doubt fall substantially -- as the administration has itself pointed out! Yield is no longer an essential metric to them; if it were, they would most assuredly not have ended early decision. The intent of the administration is to use the wait-list extremely heavily, allowing them to focus the first round of admissions on all of the most academically impressive applicants. Thus they'll be able to maximize their 'capture' of highly elite students, even if (no doubt when) this fails to fill the incoming class. Then they'll reach to the wait-list to populate the remaining slots.</p>

13

<p>Also, in addition to your bizarre discount of Yale (which has, in the social sciences and humanities, perhaps eclipsed Harvard in selectivity), Princeton compares increasingly favorably to Harvard. The crude metric of SAT distribution, for example, puts Harvard at 1390 - 1590. As I showed elsewhere, Princeton's latest numbers are 1370 - 1590. This is a substantial increase from before. There are a number of other measures of student quality (for example, the number of National Merit Scholars matriculating) that show Harvard falling in terms of desirability. Indeed, to make the claim that Harvard puts "MUCH more" emphasis on SAT scores is inaccurate on its face. Likewise for MIT. The SAT 25-75 breakdown for the latest MIT class is 1380 - 1560. MIT might assign more importance to math test scores (it absolutely does), but not to SAT scores in general. If anything, we could easily say that they're far more willing overlook poor SAT scores in the non-math components.</p>

<p>Caltech is indeed much more reliant on standardized test scores (and academic merit in general). Would I like to see Princeton move toward the Caltech model? Perhaps in some ways, but too much of an emphasis on scores per se can be very bad. Character qualities are often equally important for success later in life (and in college). Fortunately, however, Caltech doesn't have substantial overlap with Princeton. People who want to go to Caltech will pick it over every other school; that said, they are a small and select group with very special qualities that remains relatively invariant over time.</p>

14

<p>Okay, okay, I was just asking a little question; you schooled me! Happy? Good.</p>

15

<p>Oh, and one more thing, are there any competitive schools today that follow Princeton's old model from 2001? And if so, what are they?</p>

16

<p>
[quote]
Oh, and one more thing, are there any competitive schools today that follow Princeton's old model from 2001? And if so, what are they?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Any school that consistently loses cross-admitted candidates to more 'prestigious' or 'desirable' schools has an incentive to conduct its admissions somewhat non-meritocratically. This mostly finds expression in the heavy favor given to early decision candidates. People who apply ED essentially agree to a Faustian bargain: they forfeit their chance at getting in to a better school in exchange for guaranteed admission into a lesser but still satisfactory one.</p>

<p>Many of these schools still seek to manipulate yield, mostly because exposure on the US News list is extremely important for their visibility and desirability. The degree to which they do so, however, is debatable. In the absence of statistical evidence, we can only speculate. That said, I would not be surprised if almost every school lower in desirability than HYPSMC used non-meritocratic factors in its admissions decision.</p>

<p>A more interesting question, however, is whether the 2001 pattern of Princeton fitting a niche just below Harvard and Yale but above the rest is replicated elsewhere. Do Dartmouth or Columbia, for example, take advantage of their position below HYP but above Brown and Cornell? Would finding a similar pattern today shed interesting light on the 'revealed preference' pecking order of 2007? I'd love to know; alas, I'm not sure that any good data will be forthcoming for a while.</p>

17

<p>Does Princeton really think of themselves lower than Harvard and Yale? (I'm sorry you probably discussed this at length already...)</p>

18

<p>^Well, since I've been schooled on this topic, I might as fact answer your question Celita. It's not that Princeton considered itself lower, rather it was that the statistics showed more top candidates, when gotten into both or all three schools, would go with either Yale or Harvard. In addition, the admissions dean wanted more "well-rounded" students, and thus the admissions back a few years ago weighed other factors more heavily, and the SAT slightly less heavily.</p>